Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

You just reiterated your belief that these were the wrong critics. I don't care the reason you think they're the wrong critics, whether because you think they didn't critique enough of of the show to make their opinions valid or whatever.

The critiques by Metacritic were offered as evidence of the show's "critical acclaim", you followed that by stating why you don't think the critiques at Metacritic are valid -- in other words, you're not accepting their critiques as valid. Thus my statement that (in your eyes) they are the wrong critics.

Now, you let me know if you require any additional handholding.

That's not what he said at all. How can this be so confusing? Those critics loved the early episodes and those reviews were used for metacritic but those SAME critics disliked the second half of the season. If you look at the second season you'll see a 25 point DROP as critics liked the show less and it would've been an even bigger drop but some critics didn't even bother to come back and review the show.

I am most definitely not saying Metacritic aggregated the "wrong critics," particularly since, for the small set of episodes reviewed, I was actually in agreement with the majority of the critics quoted. Many of the critics who were high on the show at the beginning (Alan Sepinwall, Maureen Ryan, Matt Zoller Seitz, and James Poniewozik all come to mind immediately) sharply changed their tone on the show as the season went on, but of course those reviews don't appear on Metacritic.

Look at the dates for the aggregated reviews for season one. Every single one was from a period spanning only from March 31, 2011 to April 7, 2011. The series premiered April 3, 2011, and did not air a second episode until April 10.

The way Metacritic aggregates ratings for television shows is fundamentally flawed because it only takes into account reviews written very early in a season's run, and is rarely if ever updated to take into account reviews written later when a season may diminish or improve. Some progress does appear to have been made since Metacritic aggregates for subsequent seasons, but the problem is exactly the same there as well since those reviews again are taken from only an early batch of episodes.

My problem is not with critics but rather with Metacritic's aggregation. You can continue to falsely claim that I am saying "wrong critics" all you want, but your continued assertions won't make it truth.

I'm not saying these are the "wrong critics" or even that these are the wrong reviews; I'm saying that these aren't enough reviews over a sufficient period of time for an aggregated score to actually say anything meaningful about a show's critical acclaim (or lackthereof).

Yes, I know. You've made it clear over and over that you don't think the critiques at Metacritic are adequate or valid and why.

But rather than attempt to refute the statment that the show was critically acclaimed, as you did initially, because the critiques at Metacritic were, in your opinion, inadequate or invalid (and therefore, the wrong critics, even though you didn't actually use those words), you could simply have stated what was true; that some critics did like the show, particularly the first season or parts of the first season, and some didn't.

BTW, just to reiterate, just because some fans and critics didn't like the show didn't mean AMC agreed --obviously -- because the show has apparentely been given a repreive.

__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!

AMC cares about one thing... money. They don't care about their shows at all. The Killing is probably really cheap now, most of the old cast isn't needed. AMC doesn't give a rat's ass about it's shows, they just want money.

Breaking Bad almost went to another network for a final season just because AMC wanted 6-8 episodes only to save money. Walking Dead is HUGE and gets budget cuts left and right. Mad Men gets decent ratings and more acclaim than most shows and AMC almost didn't renew it after it's forth season because they were too cheap.

AMC doesn't care about shows, or fans, or anything other than making as much possible. With Netflix pitching in some money for the rights AMC released they can make money off of the show.

Also the article is from December 1st.

This article is from the 15th / 21st...

As of this writing The Killing is still not officially resurrected for a third season despite any reports to the contrary that you may have read. But the production team had been mobilizing in preparation for an official pick-up from AMC. The one-word question that news generally elicited was: why?

The theory I saw posited by many that made the most sense to me was that even though AMC had picked up Hell On Wheels for a third season, when the muckity mucks on the production team quit, the show's future was in limbo. AMC needed something to fill that void in case things didn't move forward with Hell On Wheels, and that was The Killing.

But with a new showrunner on board, Hell On Wheels is no longer in limbo. It's pick-up of 10 episodes is officially official. What does that mean for The Killing? Is there a 'The Killing: Now More Canceled Than Ever!" post coming in the future? If the theory outlined above was behind the talks of its revival, one might speculate the news about Hell On Wheels isn't good news for The Killing.

If a third season of The Killing is not to be, that news will certainly get out. But don't be surprised if there's no official statement from AMC. While in a somewhat rare move AMC did officially make a statement about cancelling The Killing, it hasn't officially commented on its revival yet.